Has the Time Come for Bibliometrics and the H-Index in Academic Radiology?

Abstract

Appearing in this issue of Academic Radiology is an article by Rad and colleagues entitled “The H-index in Academic Radiology” ( 1 Rad A.E. Brinjikji W. Cloft H.J. et al. The H-index in academic radiology. Acad Radiol. 2010; 17: 817-821 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (115) Google Scholar ). In this work, authors from the Mayo Clinic have produced what is, to the best of my knowledge, the first peer-reviewed publication using the H-index to characterize publications by members of academic radiology departments ( 1 Rad A.E. Brinjikji W. Cloft H.J. et al. The H-index in academic radiology. Acad Radiol. 2010; 17: 817-821 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (115) Google Scholar ). There have been several excellent published descriptions of the H-index in particular ( 2 Hirsch J.E. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005; 102: 16569-16572 Crossref PubMed Scopus (6691) Google Scholar , 3 Castillo M. Measuring academic output: the H-Index. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2009; 31: 783-784 Crossref PubMed Scopus (31) Google Scholar ) and bibliometrics in general ( 4 Krestin G.P. Evaluating the quality of radiology research: what are the rules of the game?. Radiology. 2008; 249: 418-424 Crossref PubMed Scopus (2) Google Scholar , 5 Fuller C.D. Choi M. Thomas Jr., C.R. Bibliometric analysis of radiation oncology departmental scholarly publication productivity at domestic residency training institutions. J Am Coll Radiol. 2009; 6: 112-118 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (39) Google Scholar , 6 Durieux V. Gevenois P.A. Bibliometric indicators: quality measurements of scientific publication. Radiology. 2010; 255: 342-351 Crossref PubMed Scopus (341) Google Scholar ); please see these articles for details. In brief, the H-index was introduced around 2005 by Hirsch, ostensibly for use in evaluating publications by specific authors in physics ( 2 Hirsch J.E. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005; 102: 16569-16572 Crossref PubMed Scopus (6691) Google Scholar ). In general terms, higher H-indices are “better” ( 2 Hirsch J.E. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005; 102: 16569-16572 Crossref PubMed Scopus (6691) Google Scholar ). The H-index is based on a list of publications ranked in descending order by the times cited, and the value of H is a representation of the number of articles (n) in the list that have n or more citations ( 2 Hirsch J.E. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005; 102: 16569-16572 Crossref PubMed Scopus (6691) Google Scholar ). Among other reasons, this metric may be useful because it presumptively discounts the disproportionate weight of highly cited articles or articles that have not yet been cited ( 2 Hirsch J.E. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005; 102: 16569-16572 Crossref PubMed Scopus (6691) Google Scholar , 3 Castillo M. Measuring academic output: the H-Index. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2009; 31: 783-784 Crossref PubMed Scopus (31) Google Scholar , 4 Krestin G.P. Evaluating the quality of radiology research: what are the rules of the game?. Radiology. 2008; 249: 418-424 Crossref PubMed Scopus (2) Google Scholar , 5 Fuller C.D. Choi M. Thomas Jr., C.R. Bibliometric analysis of radiation oncology departmental scholarly publication productivity at domestic residency training institutions. J Am Coll Radiol. 2009; 6: 112-118 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (39) Google Scholar , 6 Durieux V. Gevenois P.A. Bibliometric indicators: quality measurements of scientific publication. Radiology. 2010; 255: 342-351 Crossref PubMed Scopus (341) Google Scholar ).